Marciano vs. Norton

Abe Simon knocked out Jersey Joe Walcott inside of six rounds. You must have been mistaken. Walcott was the Willie Pep of the heavyweight division. Simon must have been a genius to knock out Walcott.

 

Let me set the record straight. Walcott was a late bloomer. When he fought Simon, he was nowhere near his prime. He had not even met up with Felix Bocchichio yet, and had not begun training with Dan Florio yet. Walcotts first career prior to 1944 should not be held against him given the extreme circumstances.

Mr. Marvel Did you ever bother to read a Walcott-Simon fight report? Well I got one from Ted Spoon.


What happened was Walcott, who took the fight on 24 hr notice, for a payday to support his family had little to no training, and little to no food in his belly in the past 48 hours. Still, the naturally talented Walcott beat the hell out of simon for 6 rounds. Outboxing him, Outmaneuvering him, Outslugging him, basically having his way with Simon. Then in the 6th round Walcotts lack of condition gave out on him...Walcott was stumbling around the ring out of gas and Simon finished him off. Walcott did not go down from simons punches, but from being exhausted.


Simon doesn't stand a chance against a Walcott post 1945

 

I'll buy that myself......bbb:good

MR.BILL:yep

 

wow, it must be fun to have an agenda.

perhaps, douchebagery is not enough to strive for.

 

The hell?

SR.BILL:huh

 

Simon would have trouble with the Walcott who barely defeated Maxim two out of three times and lost to a ringworn Charles three of four times.

By the way, Walcott's win-loss ratio was virtually identical after his return to the ring to that before his first retirement. He was knocked out three times first time around and three times second time around. He wasn't a late bloomer. He was a journeyman lucky enough to still be carrying on in a small sea of little fishes.

 

Wlacott only lost to Charles 2 X....... Walcott won fights 3 & 4.....

MR.BILL

 

Walcott only lost to Charles 2 X....... Walcott won fights 3 & 4.....

MR.BILL:yep

 

Walcott got a decision over Charles, but those in attendance recognized that Charles was robbed.

 

That ain't gonna fly in the books........:-(

MR.BILL

 

exactly.

 

As far as I can see ringsiders were split more or less 50/50 on who won.

That hardly amounts to a bobery.

At the end of the day you cant just cherry pick the contemporary aqcounts that suport your view.

 

Then why did Walcott defeat 12 different Ring Magazine top 10 rated Heavyweight contenders upon his return to the ring in 1944 compared to his ZERO defeats of Ring Magazine top 10 pre 1940?


Pre 1940 Walcott's best fighters he beat

Lorenzo Pack- great kayo percentage, not top 10
Willie Reddish- not top 10
Elmer Ray- Rays record was 3-4 when this fight took place

post 1944 Walcotts best fighters he beat

Joe Baksi- # 4 rated by Ring Magazine, 6'1 218lb
Joe Louis*- Hall of fame ATG heavyweight champion, undefeated past 11 years
Ezzard Charles- Hall of Fame Heavyweight Champion, undefeated in the past 4 years
Harold Johnson- Hall of Famer winner of 28 of first 29 fights, top 10 rated by Ring Magazine
Lee Q Murray- # 3 rated by Ring Magazine, 6'3 208lb Top 50 heavyweight of all time
Jimmy Bivins- # 1 rated by Ring Magazine, won his last 40 in a row as Duration Champion
Elmer Ray 2x- #2 rated by Ring Magazine, on a 66-1 winning streak
Joey Maxim 2x- Hall of Famer, top 10 by Ring Magazine both times
Hein Ten Hoff- Undefeated European Champion. 6'6 220lb with high knockout percentage
Tommy Gomez- top 10 by Ring Magazine, rated # 44 in Ring's greatest punchers of all time
Hatchetman Sheppard- top 10 by Ring Magazine, Rated in Ring's greatest punchers of all time
Omelio Agramonte- Top 10 by Ring Magazine who twice went the distance with Joe Louis

* Louis got the decision, but the consensus still remains to this day it is one of the top 10 worst robberies of all time




I would say the difference once he had Bocchichio and Florio as his Manager and Trainer compared to pre 1940 when he was a working hungry sick father trying to support a family is remarkable.

 

Not so. Why did Marciano give Charles a second title shot over a 1st title shot to a then hot Valdez? If you check the ring records of the fighters just before Charles vs Marciano II, it is clear Valdez was the better choice. As it was Valdez ascended to the rank of #1 Ring Magazine contender, but did not get his shot.

Marciano could have given Valdez his shot, but didn't. Instead they gave the shot to Charles again...even though Valdez had recently beaten Charles. In essense, Charles backed into a title shot, and was 2-2 ( I think ) in his last four fights leading up to the re-match with Rocky.

Had Charles beaten Valdez, I would have been fine with the selection of Charles. It seems Marciano's camp was not so eager to give Valdez a shot when he was hot.

 

Valdes had his problems, but he was too great a risk for Marciano. Marciano needed fighters closer to his size, preferably smaller, because he didn't have the skills and size to deal with big men with adequate skills. Moore could deal with a Valdes because of superior skill and smarts. Moore was a much better boxer than Marciano and a lot smarter in the ring. Marciano could impose his will on a small smart boxer like Moore, but against a big adequate boxer like Valdes this becomes problematic. It seems clear to me that giving Charles a rematch was part of a strategy to avoid Valdes.